Congress still hasn't given up on Orion at ISS no matter what the cost or wasteful overkill...

In which case NASA should give Congress what it wants, propose EFT-2 a manned test flight to the ISS to test the Orion's Docking port and docking navigation aids in 2022. This repeat of the Commercial Crew test flights will verify that Orion can dock with the docking port on the Asteroid Redirect Robotic Mission (ARRM) spacecraft.

I mostly agree, except that if such a notional EFT-2 goes up on D-IVH, it will have to be unmanned. As impressive as it is, D-IVH is not a human-rated launcher.

NASA should definitely give Congress what it wants, Orion at ISS, in order to rebuild trust with Congress. The NASA Authorization Act of 2010 is still the law of record, and it mandates this capability. NASA's defiance on this issue is not winning it any friends on either the Authorization or Appropriations committees.

Mark S.

I was assuming that in 2022 the Orion would be sent to the ISS on an SLS. This would be a high cost mission.

If a down select occurred on commercial crew to one provider and NASA wanted to mitigate some risk. Would it be possible for NASA to mandate that the provider would have to show the ability to fly on the other bidder's launch vehicle? IE if Boeing was selected they would have to design the CST-100 to have the ability to mate and fly on the Atlas-V and the Falcon 9, vice versa if SpaceX was selected. Since it seems that a large part of risk in a crewed vehicle is during launch. This removes the dependency on a single launch vehicle for Commercial crew while not having to pay to develop two capsules.

Logged

"Look at that! If anybody ever said, "you'll be sitting in a spacecraft naked with a 134-pound backpack on your knees charging it", I'd have said "Aw, get serious". - John Young - Apollo-16

If a down select occurred on commercial crew to one provider and NASA wanted to mitigate some risk. Would it be possible for NASA to mandate that the provider would have to show the ability to fly on the other bidder's launch vehicle? IE if Boeing was selected they would have to design the CST-100 to have the ability to mate and fly on the Atlas-V and the Falcon 9, vice versa if SpaceX was selected. Since it seems that a large part of risk in a crewed vehicle is during launch. This removes the dependency on a single launch vehicle for Commercial crew while not having to pay to develop two capsules.

If a down select occurred on commercial crew to one provider and NASA wanted to mitigate some risk. Would it be possible for NASA to mandate that the provider would have to show the ability to fly on the other bidder's launch vehicle? IE if Boeing was selected they would have to design the CST-100 to have the ability to mate and fly on the Atlas-V and the Falcon 9, vice versa if SpaceX was selected. Since it seems that a large part of risk in a crewed vehicle is during launch. This removes the dependency on a single launch vehicle for Commercial crew while not having to pay to develop two capsules.

Possibly but NASA will also want capsule redundancy.

Sometimes you have to compromise.

Logged

"Look at that! If anybody ever said, "you'll be sitting in a spacecraft naked with a 134-pound backpack on your knees charging it", I'd have said "Aw, get serious". - John Young - Apollo-16

If a down select occurred on commercial crew to one provider and NASA wanted to mitigate some risk. Would it be possible for NASA to mandate that the provider would have to show the ability to fly on the other bidder's launch vehicle? IE if Boeing was selected they would have to design the CST-100 to have the ability to mate and fly on the Atlas-V and the Falcon 9, vice versa if SpaceX was selected. Since it seems that a large part of risk in a crewed vehicle is during launch. This removes the dependency on a single launch vehicle for Commercial crew while not having to pay to develop two capsules.

Possibly but NASA will also want capsule redundancy.

Sometimes you have to compromise.

Another comprimise is to stick to two providers and continue using Soyuz for a longer period of time. It is also the most likely scenario given that CCtCap contracts have already been awarded.

If a down select occurred on commercial crew to one provider and NASA wanted to mitigate some risk. Would it be possible for NASA to mandate that the provider would have to show the ability to fly on the other bidder's launch vehicle? IE if Boeing was selected they would have to design the CST-100 to have the ability to mate and fly on the Atlas-V and the Falcon 9, vice versa if SpaceX was selected. Since it seems that a large part of risk in a crewed vehicle is during launch. This removes the dependency on a single launch vehicle for Commercial crew while not having to pay to develop two capsules.

Possibly but NASA will also want capsule redundancy.

Sometimes you have to compromise.

Another comprimise is to stick to two providers and continue using Soyuz for a longer period of time. It is also the most likely scenario given that CCtCap contracts have already been awarded.

Or, if one provider could be ready earlier with more funding now then give them more funding while the other continues with their given funding for a later date to be the other provider.

Why do we need to buy seats for 2018 Soyuz seats at all? With an additional $490 available, it should not be too difficult for CCP to start rotating crews sometime in 2018. NASA is required to have a continuous presence on the ISS. Perhaps NASA could close the gap through long endurance missions.

If I'm not mistaken, NASA/ESA/JAXA/CSA has selected crews and backup crews through the Soyuz launch scheduled for May 2017. Prior to this contract extension, NASA agreed to buy seats through the end of 2017. That leaves one astronaut going up in September 2017 and two in November according to the planned pattern of launches in 2016 as I understand it.

We currently have a cosmonaut and an astronaut on a year-long mission and several cosmonauts have pulled it off on the Mir, including Valeri Polyakov who spent 14 months up there. So perhaps they could select three astronauts that can handle a long endurance mission, just in case, as they selected Scott Kelly.

Could Congress simply chose not to pay for the 2018 Soyuz contract? Would there be some kind of legal contract cancellation fee?

Why do we need to buy seats for 2018 Soyuz seats at all? With an additional $490 available, it should not be too difficult for CCP to start rotating crews sometime in 2018. NASA is required to have a continuous presence on the ISS. Perhaps NASA could close the gap through long endurance missions.

If I'm not mistaken, NASA/ESA/JAXA/CSA has selected crews and backup crews through the Soyuz launch scheduled for May 2017. Prior to this contract extension, NASA agreed to buy seats through the end of 2017. That leaves one astronaut going up in September 2017 and two in November according to the planned pattern of launches in 2016 as I understand it.

We currently have a cosmonaut and an astronaut on a year-long mission and several cosmonauts have pulled it off on the Mir, including Valeri Polyakov who spent 14 months up there. So perhaps they could select three astronauts that can handle a long endurance mission, just in case, as they selected Scott Kelly.

Could Congress simply chose not to pay for the 2018 Soyuz contract? Would there be some kind of legal contract cancellation fee?

Under the agreement we signed with our international partners, now extended to 2020/2024, the US is required to fly or arrange to fly astronauts to and from the station. Since NASA can't guarantee the domestic capability will be ready it has to arrange backup.

As much as I appreciate having the international partners on board the ISS program; based on the construction cost, ops and maintenance costs should the US be paying for the Soyuz seats at all? Iím just musing some thoughts today....

Why do we need to buy seats for 2018 Soyuz seats at all? With an additional $490 available, it should not be too difficult for CCP to start rotating crews sometime in 2018. NASA is required to have a continuous presence on the ISS. Perhaps NASA could close the gap through long endurance missions.

If I'm not mistaken, NASA/ESA/JAXA/CSA has selected crews and backup crews through the Soyuz launch scheduled for May 2017. Prior to this contract extension, NASA agreed to buy seats through the end of 2017. That leaves one astronaut going up in September 2017 and two in November according to the planned pattern of launches in 2016 as I understand it.

We currently have a cosmonaut and an astronaut on a year-long mission and several cosmonauts have pulled it off on the Mir, including Valeri Polyakov who spent 14 months up there. So perhaps they could select three astronauts that can handle a long endurance mission, just in case, as they selected Scott Kelly.

Could Congress simply chose not to pay for the 2018 Soyuz contract? Would there be some kind of legal contract cancellation fee?

Still need a Soyuz for a lifeboat and they only last for 6 months. Still need the contract.

I believe the language also permits NASA to take funds promised to Russia to accelerate commercial crew if desired. I have a hunch from a schedule and hardware point of view they wouldn't chose to do this, as NASA would want to protect its Soyuz option in the event of schedule slips.